In another case, when President Bill Clinton fibbed on national television about his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, accusations that he was a liar were not entirely unjust. Although a supporter might argue that Clinton’s sex life was not directly relevant to his ability to govern, his ability to adhere to the truth could certainly be, and his willingness to lie on this occasion could call into question the veracity of his remarks on other subjects.
Of course, we should not discount everything any person says, no matter how badly he or she has been discredited. The fact that a person lies or behaves improperly on one occasion does not mean that he or she lies or behaves inappropriately all the time. Again, a critique of a person’s character should not prevent further examination of the arguments at hand. After all, which position is right is usually independent of a person’s character or conduct.
Being aware of how the ad hominem attack works can help us evaluate which instances of its use we should ignore and which we should consider. Ask yourself: How relevant is a political candidate’s character or action to his or her ability to perform in office? How pertinent is any person’s past or group affiliation to the claims that person makes or to that individual’s expertise in a specific domain? If the character-based attacks are not relevant to these larger issues, then they are best ignored. Instead we should attend to what is really important: What is a person asserting? Why does he or she offer a particular view, and is the view defensible?
This story was originally printed with the title, "Character Attacks".
This article was originally published with the title Character Attacks.
See what we're tweeting about
13 Comments
Add CommentTo drive the "Cruise attack" to the extreme, would the same logic also apply to a film starring (and making heaps of money from it), say, Adolf Hitler? If not, where does one draw the line in the moral quicksand?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, if the argument is that Tom Cruise's (or A. Hitler's) film is bad because the actor is a bad person or belongs to a bad organization,then that is an invalid ad-hominem and a non-sequitor, period.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the argument is made that you shouldn't see the film -irrespective of it's quality - because you would be benifitting Hitler or the Church of Scientology then it's a valid ethical argment, not an ad-hominem at all. Cruise might then argue that Scientology is not bad, or that he doesn't donate more money to it the more money he makes, so your attending his film wouldn't benefit the COS, making his membership irrelevent. (I have no idea what his financial arrangements are in that regard.)
So, in other words we can still discredit someone's character by saying he or she is atheist, anti-American, a tool for the godless [insert epithet here] - all's well then.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI guess dismissing someone as an atheist would be a valid ad hominem if you think the only origin of ethics and morality is religion, which seems to be a widespread idea in the States
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt would also be a valid ad hominem if the atheism forms the foundation for an ideology or argument.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course, this is all irrelevant anyway. A true ad hominem is an attack designed to distract from the issue at hand.
Traditional logic has always maintained that not all instances citing character or motivation are ad hominem attacks, so the author of this book has discovered nothing new at all.
I think character attacks happen for many different reasons - Quite often to protect us from having to face a point of view we would rather not face. On the other hand, though, character attacks can also happen because we are investigating the veracity of someones speech - many politicians/suitors/employers/etc make promises they do not intend to keep, and we know it and try to ferret out who can be trusted to keep their word by looking at how they lead their lives - thus the infamous "How does he treat the waitress?" assessment of the first date. So yes, we certainly should look at a persons proposals and motives for making that proposal, but character attacks Can be one way we try to get behind the smile and see the hidden thought and future.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHello All,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am enjoying the discussion.
Is a construction such as "You can't judge a man unless you've walked a mile in his moccasins," or, "It's a black thing, you wouldn't understand" be considered ad hominem attacks?
Looking forward to reading responses, JerseyRomer
I have to disagree with the conclusions of this article. We can judge a person's character by their actions, and this should definitely affect our decision to put them in certain positions, or allow them certain responsibilities. But this still can not discredit their arguments. If a liar tells us that lying is wrong, this makes him a hypocrite, but it does not invalidate his claim.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article clarifies something I've been thinking for a long time: that character attacks are, for the most part, a cheap shot and to be viewed with suspicion. But, in those cases in which a person, for example a candidate for political office, makes claims based on character, then that person's character becomes fair game. For instance, Bush has often trumpeted his devotion to the war on drugs, and during his tenure as Governor of Texas he imprisoned countless young people, mostly black and Latino, for minor drug crimes. Therefore, how is it wrong to scrutinize his own past for similar offenses? Yet, those who attempted to do so during his presidential campaigns were ignored or castigated as "dredging up the remote past."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems like the author is really skirting the issue when he brings up Gov. Spitzer or Rev. Swaggart. He does not make clear whether such an attack would be an attack on the person, or an attack on the principles that they claim to uphold. It looks like a tu quoque. If you are drawing the conclusion that the principles that they claim to uphold (such as those condemning prostitution) are invalid as a result of their actions, that conclusion is fallacious (same as with the chubby doctor). If you are drawing the conclusion that the person is not fit for office because they seem to disregard the principles that they claim to uphold, that is not really an ad hominem attack. Such an argument merely points out the logical contradiction of their own actions - making the case that each man clearly does not value what he claims to value, and by extension that he may not value what most of society deems valuable (such as the discouragement of the practice of prostitution). Pointing out hypocrisy is not an ad hominem attack in any sense that I understand. I suppose there are two camps on what sin should be stressed in these sorts of cases ( I have much less trouble with the fact that Larry Craig is obviously gay, than I do with the fact that he is a liar and a bigot).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI enjoy the fact the author speaks of Clinton and his inability to confess his infidelity. He actually used his legally trained mind to avoid this. He technically never lied by parsing finely.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWas this just an ad hominem attack?
I was glad to see someone illuminate the fair use of ad hom, but I don’t think they actually went far enough in justifying it. Consider “poisoning the well†as an example. Just like we don’t read every possible source of information when making a decision on buying a car, we don’t consider every possible source of information when we want to learn something. We employ heuristics - we take shortcuts. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be able to do much. We thus assign credibility rating to the sources that subsequently allows us to decide a priori who we will listen to. While technically, from a classical logic standpoint, this strategy will lead to errors, I don’t believe that a binary, black and white type, approach is an adequate way to look at this situation. Such examination leaves too much out of the context that is very relevant to making a proper judgment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor example, I’ve watched Bill O’Reilly enough times to have a pretty good idea of his fundamental assumptions and his thought process. So, someone comes along and says “Hey, I know you’re interested in the evolutionary theory. Bill will be talking about it tonightâ€. Do I cancel my plans so I could tune in and get some insight or do I respond with something like “Thanks, but there’s a 13 year old Joe doing a presentation on the same topic in his mid school at the same time. I think I’ll go check that one out insteadâ€. Can I be wrong about my judgment about Bill? Absolutely. Likely? Not! So, if I’m also advising you against watching O’Reilly, I’m technically “poisoning the wellâ€, and yes, it doesn’t logically follow that O’Reilly won’t have anything important to say to you, BUT, if I established a good track record credibility with you, you’d be better off following my advice. And that’s a perfectly good strategy and justification of the ad hominem.
I am having trouble with the ad hominem fallacy, ad hominem nonfallacy, or not an ad hominem at all . Any easy way to get a grasp on this?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this